Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
those processes from the threats of serious or irreversible damage as a result of
human activities.' This clause draws attention to the fact that human beings are not
the only ones harmed by damage to the environment. We need to take into account
that the human race shares the planet with millions of other creatures who also have
to suffer the consequences of thoughtless actions. Climate change and acidifi cation
of the oceans with carbonic acid threaten biodiversity in their turn (Royal Society
2005
: 35; Chivian and Bernstein
2008
: 57, 69-70). Both loss of biodiversity and
changes in ocean chemistry augment the consequences of climate change. For
instance, warming of sea water results in the reduced capacity to absorb CO
2
and so
heightens the effects of climate change. In addition, the increased acidity of the
water due to the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide already has absorbed about
30% of the greenhouse gas and affects marine organisms (WGIAR5 SPM: Figure
SPM.4). This in its turn impacts on the food chain. Again, it is the poor whose nutri-
tional intake suffers.
Increasing temperature affects both tropical forests and the ice cover of the Arctic
and Antarctic regions. Open water being much darker than ice refl ects less of the
sun's heat back into space. In reality, although helpful in understanding the magni-
tude of the problem, separating the onslaught by humanity on the ecosystem into
different areas is artifi cial: the various strands interact in a complicated web.
2
Climate Scepticism: From Arguments for 'Business
as Usual' to Outright Denial
2.1
The False High Expense Argument
How has it been possible that the urgency of taking action to minimise the risk from
climate change has been relegated to the background? The reasons for the break-
down are twofold: fi rst, a general objection to recommendations to decarbonise the
economy stems from the mistaken perception of the huge expense of taking action.
Economists make use of a method called cost-benefi t analysis, developed from the
investment evaluation technique used to assess whether investment projects would
be suffi ciently profi table. It also tends to be applied in the case of public infrastruc-
ture projects in order to establish which of two or more projects should be under-
taken. To illustrate, the assumption is that the construction of additional hospitals
makes future populations more prosperous and that this is fairly refl ected by the
fi nancial return on investment. Projects of this kind are evaluated according to
expected results expressed in terms of fi nancial gain. In consequence, the value of
the treatment of future patients is rated lower than if the same amount is spent on
patient care in the present. Calculating which is more valuable tends to take the
form of
discounting
- future revenues (and by implication, costs) are evaluated at
fi ve or six percent per year less than if these were made now. Many economists also
use this calculation method in connection with issues of long-term environmental
Search WWH ::
Custom Search